Citation for this paper:
MacGregor, J. N., Cunningham, J. B., & Walinga, J. (2020). An Experimental Comparison of Approaches to Training Insight. Creativity. Theories – Research -
Applications, 6(2), 155-181. https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2019-0010.
UVicSPACE: Research & Learning Repository
_____________________________________________________________
Faculty of Human & Social Development
Faculty Publications
_____________________________________________________________
An Experimental Comparison of Approaches to Training Insight James N. MacGregor, John Barton Cunningham, & Jennifer Walinga April 2020
© 2020 James N. MacGregor et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
This article was originally published at: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2019-0010
155
Vol. 6, Issue 2, 2019
An Experimental Comparison of Approaches
to Training Insight*
James N. MacGregor
University of Victoria, Canada E-mail address: jmacgreg@uvic.ca
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Insight
Problem solving Creativity training
The purpose of the research was to investigate different types of training in insight problem solving. In doing so, we reviewed the literature on experimental tests of procedures for training insight problem solving. The results revealed that most procedures focused either on restructuring or divergent thinking, and provided some evidence for the effectiveness of both approaches. However, we found no studies that com-pared the effects of the two approaches. The article reports two experiments that compared different training procedures based on restructuring and divergent thinking. For the latter, the methods focused separately on fluency, flexibility and originality training. The first experiment compared a restruc-turing approach with fluency training and a placebo control condition. The results indicated that the restructuring training was significantly more effective than the others, but only when instructions were verbal, not in script form. The second experiment compared restructuring training with flexibility, fluency and originality training, all presented in script form, and the results indicated that the restructuring training was significantly more effective than both fluency training and flexibility training. Implications for future research are dis-cussed.
INTRODUCTION
Insights - commonly associated with the Aha! experience - are considered to be the sud-den realization of being able to solve a problem or find a novel route to reach a goal. One of the most central questions in the psychology of thinking concerns the process by which insight occurs. “Why is it that some people, when they are faced with problems, get clever Article history:
Received 07 August 2019
Received in revised form 28 October 2019 Accepted 27 December 2019
ISSN: 2354-0036
DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2019-0010
Theories – Research – Applications
John Barton Cunningham
University of Victoria, Canada E-mail address: bcunning@uvic.ca
Jennifer Walinga
Royal Roads University, Victoria, B.C., Canada E-mail address: Jennifer.walinga@royalroads.ca
* The research was partially supported by grants from NSERC and SSHRC. The contact author is James MacGregor, School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, BC, Canada.
156
ideas, make inventions and discoveries? What happens, what are the processes that lead to such solutions?” (Luchins & Luchins, 1970, p. 1). These questions, asked by the Gestalt psychologist, Max Wertheimer, in the 1930’s, continue to be a driving force in searching for how people solve problems, make discoveries, or make decisions. Are insights and discoveries sparked by an event, or a hint, something which forces us to think in new ways? Are some people more flexible or original in their thinking and able to recognize that constraints can really be worked around?
Insights are thought to be at the heart of the discovery process, when the problem solver unravels a way to solve a problem which he or she was previously unable to solve. Examples of such discoveries might be Banting and Best’s discovery of insulin for treating diabetes (Hume, 2001), Watson and Crick’s idea of a double helix organization of DNA (Watson, 1968) or George de Mestral’s unearthing of how the burrs that clung to his clothes might be used to develop a hook and loop style of binding later called Velcro.
There has been a resurgence of interest in insight over the last three decades, fol-lowing a seminal edited collection (Sternberg & Davidson, 1995). A number of new theo-retical developments appeared, in the form of Representational Change Theory (Knoblich, Ohlsson, Heider & Rhenius 1999), Criterion for Satisfactory Progress Theory (MacGregor, Ormerod, & Chronicle, 2001) and Redistribution Theory (Ohlsson, 2011). New methods have been developed for measuring insight-related phenomena. Some have expanded the available repertoire of test problems, such as compound remote as-sociates (Bowden & Jung-Beeman, 2003) and rebus puzzles (MacGregor & Cunningham, 2008). Others have introduced novel procedures, such as feeling-of-warmth ratings (Metcalfe, 1996), and methods to identify brain activity associated with insight (Kounios et al., 2006; Luo, Niki, & Phillips, 2004). As part of this general increase in activity, research has addressed whether insight problem solving can be promoted, and this is the main concern of the present research.
Many organizations make substantial investments in different kinds of training as an effort to improve more creativity in developing ideas (Rose & Lin, 1984; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004; Torrance, 1972) and insight problem solving seems to underlie some popular approaches for encouraging insight or thinking differently (de Bono, 1972, 1972). A number of experimental studies have now investigated effects of instruction, training and hints on people’s success in solving insight problem solving (Ansburg & Dominowski, 2000; Davidson & Sternberg, 1984; Duncan, 1961; Lung & Dominowski, 1985; Maier, 1933). Training is often of different types focusing on creative thinking (Rose & Lin, 1984; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004; Torrance, 1972) and finding insightful solutions to problems (Ansburg & Dominowski, 2000; Chrysikou, 2006; Davidson & Sternberg, 1984). We report
157
two experiments that compared two theoretically different training procedures, contrasting training which emphasizes a Gestalt based restructuring approach with procedures that focused separately on creativity training in encouraging fluency, flexibility and originality, three of the main factors of divergent thinking (Guilford, 1950).
REVIEW OF DIFFERENT TRAINING APPROACHES
While there has been a long-standing interest in training creativity in general, studies of training insight problem solving have been much rarer. In this, section we briefly review (a) evaluations of creativity training in general, followed by (b) reports of insight training, specifically.
Creativity training
As far back as 1972, Torrance published a summary of over 140 studies on creativity training (Torrance, 1972), the majority of which measured creativity using Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Subsequently a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been reported (Ma, 2006; Mansfield, Busse, & Krepelka, 1978; Moga, But-ler, Hetland, & Winner, 2000; Rose & Lyn, 1984; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004).
Mansfield et al. (1978) evaluated the results of almost 40 studies, involving a dozen different creativity programs, the majority of which placed “…primary and sometimes exclu-sive emphasis on divergent thinking…” (p. 518). They concluded that the evidence support-ed “…the view that creativity can be trainsupport-ed…” (p. 531), but notsupport-ed that the evidence for transfer of training was limited, as the majority of training programs emphasized divergent thinking and measured effectiveness in terms of gains in divergent thinking. Rose and Lyn (1984) conducted a meta-analysis on the results of over 40 studies, all of which involved the TTCT as dependent variable, and reported a moderate average effect size.
Moga et al (2000) conducted three meta-analyses of studies on the effects of study -ing visual arts on creative thinking. In all, eight studies were included in the meta-analyses, the majority of which used either the TTCT or a test of fluency as the measure of creativity.
Scott et al. (2004) reported a meta-analysis of 70 training studies which yielded 97 effect sizes. Dependent variables were classified into four categories, divergent thinking (fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration), accounting for 38% of effect sizes, problem solving (29%), performance (16%), and attitude/behavior (16%). Average effect sizes for the four categories of dependent variable were .75, .84, .35 and .24 for divergent thinking, problem solving, performance and attitude/behavior, respectively.
Finally, the meta-analysis reported by Ma (2006) was based on 34 studies involv-ing over 250 effect sizes, with an overall mean of .77, a moderate, and borderline large,
158
effect size. Twelve separate dependent variables were analyzed, the majority being either fluency or originality, which together accounted for over 60% of the effect sizes.
Taken together, the results are consistent with the early conclusions of Mansfield et al., (1978) that creativity can be trained, but that the bulk of the evidence is based on training divergent thinking and measuring the results in terms of its component factors, of fluency, flexibility and originality. There was little or no evidence in any of the systemat-ic reviews or meta-evaluations that specifsystemat-ically addressed insight problem solving and whether or not it is amenable to training. Next, we turn to this issue, with a summary and review of the limited literature on training insight problem solving.
Insight training
The resurgence of research on insight problem solving over the past several decades has brought with it a growing interest in developing methods to improve insight performance. In a review, Chu and MacGregor (2011) identified five approaches to influencing insight performance - training (e.g. Ansburg & Dominowski, 2000; Chrysikou, 2006), providing hints (e.g. Burke, Maier, & Hoffman, 1966; Chronicle, Ormerod, & MacGregor, 2001; Kokinov, Hadjiilieva, & Yoveva, 1997, using problem analogs (e.g. Gick & Holyoak, 1980; Ormerod, Fioratou, Chronicle, & MacGregor, 2006), manipulating number of moves (e.g. Ash & Wiley, 2006; MacGregor, Ormerod, & Chronicle, 2001), and requiring concurrent verbalization (e.g. Ball & Stevens, 2009; Berardi-Coletta et al., 1995). To these, Patrick and Ahmed (2014) added a sixth, in the form of manipulating the situation, such as allow-ing an opportunity for incubation. Some of these approaches are quite specific, as in the case of hints and problem analogs, where the aid to solution is tailored to a particular in-stance of an insight problem. Other approaches may apply more generally, such as incu-bation and training. The present research is concerned with the last of these approaches. In this, we understand “training” to involve a set of instructions that are sufficiently general that they are able to facilitate solutions when later confronted with previously unfamiliar insight problems (e.g. Patrick & Ahmed, 2014).
Literature Search
In our search for relevant studies we adopted the following criteria. First, the research had to include an experimental comparison which involved the manipulation of training as defined above. Second, the dependent variable(s) had to include performance on at least one insight problem. Third, we limited the search to peer reviewed journals.
We began by examining the studies cited by Chu and MacGregor (2011), which resulted in five references, four of which met our criteria for inclusion. Next, we examined the citation lists from each of these, which led to six additional references, four of which met the criteria. Most of these were older, and none of their reference lists resulted
159
in new candidate studies. Finally, we conducted a full-text search of the ERIC, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES databases using the search string “insight* problem solving” AND training. After removing articles that had been previously found or that did not meet the criteria, nine of these remained. In total, the search procedure resulted in 17 articles re-porting experimental studies of insight training.
Classification of insight training programs
The training programs and procedures used in each study were examined and classified into the following categories.
1. Restructuring: The procedure primarily focuses on problem reformulation, overcoming impasses or barriers to solution through techniques such as constraint relaxation, ques-tioning assumptions, mindfulness.
2. Divergence: The procedure primarily focuses on generating alternatives, including mul-tiple uses, unusual uses, ad hoc categories, mulmul-tiple moves.
3. Other: any training procedure that does not clearly focus on restructuring or divergent thinking.
Table 1 summarizes the 17 articles, which together yielded 30 experiments. For each study, the columns of the table show: the source; the focus of training; the perfor-mance measures used; the experimental comparisons involved; a brief summary of find-ings. The sources are reported in chronological order, from earliest to most recent.
In terms of training focus, the Table indicates that the majority of studies used a form of restructuring training, which was tested in 21 of the 30 experiments. Divergent thinking was the next most prevalent form of training, represented in eight. It should be noted that the distinction between the two was not always absolute, and there were in-stances where one may have contained elements of the other. For example, the “overinclusive thinking training” applied in Chiu (2015), considered a form of flexibility training, might also be viewed as a means of inducing constraint-relaxation. Also, the list-ing of opposites procedure used in the Bianchi et al., (2019) study, has similarities with some methods of fluency training. However, we believe that the classification, while im-perfect, provides a guide to the main types of training and their relative frequencies.
The experimental tests fell into one of three main types: two group comparison, typically, training vs. control (11); multigroup comparison (16); factorial design with two independent variables (3).
Of the 11 two-group comparisons, the results of the earliest three are difficult to interpret. Maier (1933) did not report statistical tests for his two experiments, while Maltz-man’s et al., (1958) finding of no significant difference between two training methods is
160
uninterpretable in the absence of a control condition. All of the remaining eight two-group comparisons resulted in significant increases in solution rates as a result of training, sev-en using restructuring training.
Of the 16 multigroup studies, 13 reported significant positive effects of training, nine associated with restructuring, and four with divergence. The three non-significant re-sults all used divergence training, although all three were from the same study using a single spatial insight problem as the test (Duncan, 1961).
Finally, all three experiments using factorial comparisons reported some significant positive effect of restructuring training, but in each case moderated by the effects of the other independent variable.
In total, of the 27 interpretable experimental comparisons in Table 1, 24 (89%) showed some significant positive effect of the training intervention. Of these, 19 of the 21 instances testing restructuring training had significantly positive results (90%), while four of the seven tests of divergence were positive (57%). In all, the results provide fairly con-sistent evidence that insight problem solving can be improved through instructional train-ing. In addition, the limited evidence available suggests that training in restructuring may be more effective than training in divergent thinking.
The experiments reported in Table 1 had a number of similarities and differences, two of which motivated the two studies reported here. The first is in the comparison groups that the experiments employed, while the second is in the format of instruction that they used.
161 S ou rce A rt icle T rai ning f oc us P erf orman ce measu res E xp eri men tal co mpa ri son s M ain f ind ing s Ma ier ( 19 33) Res tr uc turi ng: ins tr uc tio ns inc lud ed tha t the s ol ut ion to a prob le m i s a p at tern a nd tha t probl em el em ents c an s ud de nl y form i nto ne w pa tterns . A ls o, to av oi d stay ing in a rut a nd k eep a n o pen m in d S pa tia l i ns ig ht pro b-lem s ( 3) E xpe rime nt 1 c ontras ted a t rai ni ng an d non -tr ai ni ng c ond iti on o n t ran sfer to three ins igh t probl em s. E xpe rime nt 2 us ed a pretes t/p os tte st de si gn E xpe rime nt 1 : T he tra in ing group so lv ed 49 % of probl em s, t he c on tr ol grou p, 4 0%. E xpe rime nt 2 : P rett es t s ol uti on r ate s wer e 1 8%. P os tte st ra tes , fo llowi ng tr ai ni ng, wer e 3 7% . No te sts of s ign ifi can ce re ported Ma ltz ma n, B ro ok s, B og artz an d S um me rs ( 19 58 ) Di verge nc e: Ins tr uc tion s us ed a var iat ion of th e Un us ua l Us es te st A ll pa rt ic ip an ts wer e i ns tr uc ted to l is t a s m an y us es as po ss ibl e f or t hree ob jec ts ( flue nc y) , wh ile som e rec ei ved the a dd iti on al ins tr uc tion to lis t u ses “ as ori gi na l as p os si -bl e” ( flue nc y + or igi na lity ) Ma ier’s two -s tr ing probl em E xpe rime nt 1 us ed tw o l ev el s of in-str uc tion al tra in ing , c on tr as ting the eff ec ts of fl uen cy v ers us fl uen cy + orig ina lity . T hree ad di tion al ex pe ri-me nts tes ted eff ec ts of no n -ge ne ra l tr ai ni ng , s pe ci fic to the tes t probl em on ly T he re wa s no s ign ifi ca nt di fferenc e b etw ee n flu en -cy trai ni ng a nd fl uen cy + ori gi nal ity trai ni ng . Th e ab sen ce of a no -tr ai ni ng c ontrol group le ft i t u n-cl ea r wh eth er bot h t rea tme nts or ne ith er tr ea tme nt ha d an e ffe ct o n s ub se qu ent pe rf ormanc e o n th e two -s tr ing prob lem Dunc an ( 19 61) Di verge nc e: (a) f lue nc y ( lis ting as ma ny us es as po ss ib le f or ob jec ts ); (b) ori gi -na lity ( lis tin g “i nge ni ous , u nus ua l or r are” us es , p . 3 7) Ma ier’s two -s tr ing probl em T hree e xp erim en ts us ed f our c on di -tion s t ha t c ontras te d l is tin g mu lti pl e us es of ( a) a prob lem -r el ev an t o bj ec t, (b & c ) n eu tral o bj ec ts , w ith (d) a co n-tr ol gro up . T he fi rs t two em ph as iz ed ma ny us es w hi le t he thi rd s tr es sed un us ua l us es T he re we re n o ov eral l s ign ifi can t di fferenc es be -twee n trai ni ng a nd c ontrol c on di tion s i n a ny of the se t hree e xpe rime nts W ic ker et al ., (19 78 ) 1. Res tr uc tur ing : i ns tr uc tion s em ph a-si zed “ refo rm ul ati ng t hei r in iti al v iew … to av oi d un nec es sary as sum pti on s” ( p. 372) 2. O the r: V is ua liz at ion — pa rti ci pa nts ins tr uc ted to “…f orm a v ery c om pl ete an d de ta iled im ag e of the p rob le m c om -po ne nts ..” ( p. 37 3) Uns pe ci fied ins igh t probl em s ( 11 ) E xpe rime nt 1 us ed 4 c on di tion s: (a) prac tic e o n 8 ins igh t prob le ms fo llow ed by bo th fo rms o f trai ni ng ; (b ) as in (a) bu t v is ual iz ati on tra in ing on ly ;( c) prac -tic e o nl y; (d) c on tr ol ( 11 t es t p rob lem s on ly ) E xpe rime nt 2 us ed 4 c on di tion s: (a) du al trai ni ng , as in E xp. 1; (b) r efo rmu -lat ion tr ai ni ng o nl y; (c ) me mo riz at ion tas k c on tr ol ; ( d) c on tr ol as in E xp. 1 E xp. 1: Dua l tra in ing r es ul ted in s ig ni fic an tly m ore sol ut ion s t o t es t prob lem s t ha t v is ual iz ati on or c on-tr ol Exp. 2: Ref ormu lat ion trai ni ng r es ul ted in s ign ifi -can tly m ore s ol uti on s th an the ot he r c on di tio ns Ta ble 1 Summar y of E xpe rim ents on Trai ning Insi gh t
162 S ou rce A rt icle T rai ning f oc us P erf orman ce measu res E xp eri men tal co mpa ri son s M ain f ind ing s Dav ids on an d S tern be rg (1 98 4) O the r: Foc us o n s el ec tiv e e nc od ing , com bi na tion an d c om pa ris on: tr ai ni ng con si sted of di rec t i ns tr uc tion in t hes e three p roc es ses in c omb ina tion wi th gr ou p di sc us si on (i n ap pl yi ng th e c on -cep ts to ins ig ht pr ob lem s) , r el ev an t ga me s an d prac tic e wi th i ns igh t prob-lem s Ma th em ati ca l i ns ig ht probl em s ( 15 ) A n e xp eri me nt c om pared a trai ni ng vers us c on tr ol c on di tio n u si ng a pre-tes t/p os ttes t d es ign T he re wa s a s ig ni fic an t ga in i n i ns igh t pe rf ormanc e for the tr ai ni ng g ro up be tw een pre - an d po stte st (17 %) bu t no t for th e c on tr ol c on di tion . The di ffer-en ce i n g ai ns be tw ee n c on di tion s w as al so s ign ifi -ca nt A ns bu rg an d Domi no ws ki (20 00 ) 1. Res tr uc tur ing : s tr ate gi c i ns tr uc tion s an d prac tic e us ed to f ac ili ta te con str ai nt rel ax at ion & el abo rat io n. 2. P rac tic e: ex perie nc e w ith probl em s si mi lar to th e te st p ro bl em s V erba l i ns ig ht pr ob -lem s ( 15) F ou r ex pe rime nts us ed a t rea tm en t vers us c on tr ol d es ign to tes t d iff erent com bi na tion s of tr ai ni ng ins tr uc tion s an d prac tic e ag ai ns t a no -tr ea tm en t con tr ol . A fi fth u sed a three group com pa ris on In al l f iv e e xp erim en ts , s ign ifi ca ntl y m ore pr ob lem s wer e s ol ve d u nd er tr ai ni ng tha n c ontrol . S ol uti on rate s r an ged fro m 4 8% to 6 1% ac ros s ex pe ri-me nt al c ond iti on s an d f ro m 34 % t o 3 6% ac ros s con tr ol s Dow a nd Ma yer (20 04 ) T rai ni ng tai lore d t o do ma in spe ci fic c at e-go ries o f p ro bl em: sp ati al , ma th em ati ca l, verbal . 1. Res tr uc tur ing : fo r s pa tia l probl em s, ins tr uc tio ns em ph as iz ed c ons tr ai nt rel ax -ati on; for v erbal prob le ms , l oo ki ng f or a tri ck o r p la y on w or ds 2. Di verg en ce (or ig ina lity ): f or mat he m at-ic al p ro bl em s, in st ru ct io ns s tr es se d fin d-ing a n ov el ap pro ac h T hree e ac h o f s pa-tia l, m ath ema tic al an d v erb al ins igh t probl em s ( 9) O ne ex pe rime nt co mp are d the e ffe cts of fo ur l ev el s of tr ai ni ng t o tes t th e ef-fec ts of d om ai n s pec ifi c trai ni ng o n tr an sfer. A s ec on d c om pa red s pa tia l trai ni ng , verbal tra in ing an d n o t rai ni ng S pa tia l i ns ig ht tr ai ni ng le d t o s ign ifi can tly be tter tr an sfer to oth er s pa tial pro bl ems ( 50 % s ol ut ion rate ) th an t he o the r th ree tr ai ni ng c on di tion s (v erbal o nl y, ma th on ly , a nd a ll t hree c omb ine d — 21 % to 26 %) . T he oth er ty pes of tra ini ng ha d no eff ec t. In th e s ec on d e xp er im en t s pa tia l trai ni ng res ul te d in s ign ifi can tly b ett er tr ans fer to s pa tia l pro bl em s (32 %) th an v erba l tra in ing ( 16 %) bu t n ot th an a no -tr ai ni ng c on tr ol ( 22 %) . V erb al tra in ing ha d n o ef fec t Chr ys ik ou ( 20 06) Di verge nc e: T rai ni ng w ith a v aria tion of the U nu sua l Us es Tes t i nv ol vi ng th e ge ne rati on o f a ltern ati ve c ateg ori es V erba l a nd s pati al ins ig ht pr ob lem s ( 7) T wo e xpe rime nts ea ch c om pa red two vers ion s of tra in ing wi th t w o c on tr ol con di tio ns In bo th ex perim en ts , t he tr ai ni ng c ond iti ons s ig ni fi-can tly o utp erf orme d t he c ontrol s, w ith so lut io n rate s r an gi ng from 54 % to 61 % ac ros s trai ni ng con di tio ns an d 34 % to 42 % ac ros s c on tr ol s Cunn ing ha m a nd Ma cG reg or ( 20 08 ) Res tr uc turi ng: T rai ni ng ins tr uc tion s e m-ph as iz ed a vo id ing an d ov er com in g i m-pa ss e V erba l ( 6) a nd s pa-tia l ( 3) i ns igh t p ro b-lem s, pres en ted in rea lis tic or p uz zl e-lik e v ers ion s. A ls o reb us pu zz les ( 21 ) A n e xp eri me nt us ed a 2 x2 fac tori al de si gn, w ith tr ai ni ng v ers us c on tr ol as on e f ac tor an d rea lis tic v ers us pu zz le -lik e prob lem v ers ion s as a s ec on d f ac -tor T rai ni ng ha d a s ig ni fic an t e ffec t o n re bu s p uz zl es , wi th so lut io n rates of 66% u nd er tr ai ni ng v ers us 49 % u nd er c ontrol c on di tio ns . For th e i ns igh t prob-lem s, t he re was a si gn ifi ca nt inte rac tion , wh ic h ind ic ate d a s ign ifi ca nt pos iti ve e ffe ct of tr ai ni ng on pu zz le -li ke s pa tia l i ns ig ht pr ob lem s ( 67 % s ol uti on rate v ers us 27 % f or c on tr ol s) . There wer e no s ig-ni fic an t eff ec ts fo r v erb al pr ob lem s.
163 S ou rce A rt icle T rai ning f oc us P erf orman ce measu res E xp eri men tal co mpa ri son s M ain f ind ing s W al in ga , Cunn ing ha m a nd Ma cG reg or, (20 11 ) 1. Res tr uc tur ing : In str uc tion s fo cus ed o n av oi di ng as sum pti ons or ov erc om in g ba rr iers 2. O th er : G oa ls in struc tio ns to fo cu s o n an d c larif y th e g oa l s tat e S pa tia l i ns ig ht pro b-lem s ( 8) a nd ma tc h-sti ck ari thm eti c ( 3) A n e xp eri me nt us ed 4 c on di tion s. T rai ni ng on : ba rr iers & as sum pt ion s com bi ne d; b arr iers al on e; a ss um pti ons al one ; go al s; c on tr ol w ith sho rt p lac e-bo in struc tio ns ; c on tro l w ith lo ng er p la -ceb o i ns tr uc tio ns Comb in ed tra in ing ( 72 % s ol ut ion r ate) was s ign ifi -can tly m ore ef fec tiv e tha n a ll oth er c ond iti on s: B ar-rier tr ai ni ng ( 58 % c orr ec t) was s ign ifi ca ntl y mo re eff ec tiv e th an g oa l trai ni ng ( 42 %) . No oth er c om -pa ris on s w er e s ig ni fic an t. W en , B utl er an d K ou ts taa l ( 20 12) 1. Di verg en ce: Unu su al Us es Tes t 2. O the r: T he S el f-A ffi rma tion Tas k - pa rti ci pa nts r el at ed pe rs on al ex perie nc -es in res pon se t o g iv en pa irs of v al ues (e.g . “thr ifty an d g ene ro us ”, p . 6 ) S pa tia l a nd v erb al ins ig ht pr ob lem s ( 6) A n e xp eri me nt c om pared 4 c on di tio ns : di verge nc e t ra ini ng ; s el f-af fir ma tion tr ai ni ng ; p lac eb o t ra ini ng c ontrol ; no tr ai ni ng c on tr ol S ig ni fic an tly h igh er s ol uti on s r ate s fo un d u nd er di verge nc e t ra ini ng ( ~ 62 %) an d s el f-aff irma tio n tr ai ni ng ( ~ 63%) th an p ac eb o (41%) a nd no -tr ai ni ng (47 %) c on tr ol s ( me ans es tima te d f rom fi gu re) O sta fin a nd K as sma n (20 12 ) Re struc tu rin g: av oi di ng /o ve rc om in g me nt al bl oc ks th rou gh mi nd ful nes s trai n-ing , c on si sti ng of ins tr uc tio ns “ …to br ing awaren es s to s en sat io ns in th e bo dy …” ( p. 10 34) Three in si gh t a nd three n on -ins ig ht probl em s O ne o f t wo e xp er im en ts te ste d in si gh t, com pa ring the eff ec ts of m ind fu lne ss tr ai ni ng wi th a no -tr ai ni ng c on tr ol Tr ai ni ng res ul te d i n s ig ni fic an tly m or e s ol ut io ns to ins ig ht pr ob lem s ( 38 %) th an t he c on tr ol c on di tion (25 %) , b ut ha d n o e ffec t o n no n-ins ig ht pro bl em s (10 % an d 1 1%, r es pe ct iv el y) P atri ck a nd A hm ed ( 201 4) Res tr uc turi ng: tr ai ni ng prov ide d he ur is -tic s to fa ci litat e p ro bl em ref ormul ati on throug h c on str ai nt re lax at io n. T he tr ai n-ing was s pe ci fic to s ome c las ses of in-si gh t prob lem bu t no t oth ers , fo r whi ch the tra in ing was d ee m ed to be “ ou t-of -sc op e” E xp. 1: V erbal in-si gh t prob lem s ( 9) E xp. 2: V erbal (3) an d s pa tia l (3) in -si gh t prob lem s E xpe rime nt 1 c omp are d t he e ffec ts of tr ai ni ng wi th a no -tr ai ni ng c on tr ol . T hree o f th e ni ne tes t p ro bl em s were out -of -s cop e E xpe rime nt 2 ag ai n c omp ar ed ef fec ts of tr ai ni ng w ith no tr ai ni ng. In t hi s cas e, the three v er ba l prob lem s were out -of -s cop e In E xp. 1, tra in in g s ol uti on r ate s ( 49 %) w ere s ig ni f-ic an tly h ig he r th an c on tr ol ( 15 % ) fo r pr ob le m s wi th in s cop e b ut n ot fo r t ho se o ut -of -s cop e of the tr ai ni ng F ind ing s in E xp. 2 were s im ilar, wi th a s ign ifi ca ntl y hi ghe r s ol uti on r at e in t he tr ai ni ng c on di tion ( 39%) tha n the no n-tr ai ni ng (6%) , bu t f or i n-sc op e prob-lem s o nl y P atri ck , A hm ed , S my , S ee di e an d S am brook s ( 20 15) Res tr uc turi ng: parti ci pa nts wer e t ra ine d in a proc ed ure for r eformu lati ng p ro b-lem s by id en tify in g a nd c orr ec ting inc on-si sten ci es in inte rpreti ng probl em s tat e-me nts . Tr ai ni ng al so prov id ed g en era l awaren es s of th e n atu re of ins ig ht pr ob -lem s V erba l i ns ig ht pr ob -lem s ( 7) E xpe rime nt 1 c omp are d e ff ec ts of in-con si sten cy + aware ne ss trai ni ng , prac tic e o nl y, an d no tra in in g c on tr ol E xpe rime nt 2 c omp are d i nc on si sten cy + aw aren es s trai ni ng , aw arenes s on ly tr ai ni ng , an d n o t rai ni ng E xpe rime nt 3 us ed fou r c on di tion s: tr ai ni ng fo llo wed by te st p ro bl ems ei -the r ( 1) i mm edi ate ly , (2) af ter 24 ho urs , (3) af ter 48 ho urs , a nd ( 4) n o tr ai ni ng In E xp. 1, tra in in g res ul ted in s ign ifi can tly mo re sol ut ion s ( 68%) th an p rac tic e (39%) an d n o t rai n-ing ( 30%) E xp. 2 fou nd tha t t ha t tr ai ni ng led to s ig ni fic an tly hi ghe r s ol uti on r at es ( 60 %) tha n ei the r a war en es s tr ai ni ng ( 30 %) or no tra in in g (30%) In E xp. 3, s ol ut ion r ate s o f 65 %, 5 7% a nd 62 % wer e o bta ine d f or t he n o d el ay , 2 4 h our de lay a nd 48 h ou r d el ay c ond iti ons , a ll s ig ni fic an tly hi gh er tha n for th e n o trai ni ng c on di tion ( 25%)
164 S ou rce A rt icle T rai ning f oc us P erf orman ce measu res E xp eri men tal co mpa ri son s M ain f ind ing s Chi u ( 20 15) Di verge nc e (fl ex ib ili ty ): p art ic ipa nts r e-cei ved “ ov eri nc lus iv e t hi nk ing tra in-ing ” ( O T T ) i n the form of a cate go ry d is -cr im in ati on ta sk The ta sk w as d es ig ne d to ind uc e ov erly -ge ne ral ad ho c c ate go -ries by c om bi ng c on ce pts wi th larg e s e-ma tic di sta nc es in to a s ing le c ate gory Uns pe ci fied ins igh t probl em s ( 5) O ne of fou r ex peri me nts te sted ins igh t us ing three c on di tion s: lon g s em an tic di stan ce O T T ( e.g . c at eg or iz ing furni -tu re it em s a nd fr ui ts to ge th er ); sh or t sem an tic d is tan ce OT T ( e. g. com bi n-ing fr ui ts a nd v ege tab les ); a c on tr ol , where p arti ci pa nts r ec ei ved s tan da rd cate go ry tra ini ng ( e.g. c at ego riz ing fr ui ts to ge th er) Lo ng s em anti c di sta nc e OT T r es ul te d i n s ig ni fi-can tly h igh er s ol uti on r at es ( 50 %) th an t he c on tr ol con di tio n (29%) bu t no t s ho rt s em an tic d is tan ce O TT (39 %) B ran ci ni , B ian ch i, B urr o, C ap itan i an d S av ard i (20 16 ) Res tr uc turi ng: parti ci pa nts wer e t ra ine d to refo rm ul ate three prac tic e s pa tial in-si gh t prob lem s by tr an sfor mi ng f eatu res into “ con tr ari es ” ( e.g . v erti cal li nes in to ob liqu es , e tc .) S pa tia l i ns ig ht pro b-lem s ( 7) A n e xp eri me nt us ed a 2 x 2 de si gn con si sti ng o f tr ai ni ng (tr ai ni ng v ers us no tra ini ng ) a nd c onte xt (i ndi vi dua l vers us group ) T he an al ys is o f s ol uti on r at es s ho wed a si gn ifi ca nt inte rac tio n e ffec t, w ith tr ai ni ng imp rov ing pe rfor-ma nc e in t he group trai ni ng c on tex t (41 % v ers us 32 %) , b ut not th e i nd iv id ua l c on tex t (23 % v ers us 28 %) . Ho wev er, p arti ci pa nt s to ok s ign ifi can tly mo re t ime to fi nd c orr ec t s ol ut ion s in t ra in ing c on -di tion s t ha n c ontro ls B ia nc hi , B ra nc hi -ni , B urr o, C ap ita ni an d S av ard i (20 19 ) Re struc tu rin g: A s in B ra nc hi ni e t a l., ab ov e, pa rti ci pa nts were trai ned to i de n-tify op po si tes of prob lem pr op erti es , e i-the r by us ing the s ame tr ai ni ng p roc e-du re a s a bo ve or, i n a prel imi nary ph as e (r efe rr ed to as “ Hi nt” ), requ iri ng p arti ci -pa nts to i de nt ify a ll of the s pa tial prop er-ties a nd the ir op pos ites of the s am e 3 prac tic e p ro bl em s us ed f or tr ai ni ng , an d ad vi si ng th at th is wo ul d h el p i n s ol vi ng probl em s S pa tia l i ns ig ht pr ob -lem s ( 6) A n e xp er im en t u se d a 2 x 2 d es ig n wi th the fac tors “ T ype of fa ci lit a-tion ” ( T ra ini ng v H int) an d “Ide nt ifi cat io n o f prop erti es ” ( in t he prel imi na ry ph as e), O vert L is tin g v Cov ert Li st in g. In the ov ert con di tio n, pa rti ci pa nts were r equ ired to writ e do wn the prop erti es a nd th ei r op po -si tes th at th ey id en tifi ed w hi le in t he co ve rt co nd iti on s, th ey we re n ot The re wa s a s ig ni fic an t i nt er ac tio n be tw ee n t he fac tors , a nd po st ho c c om paris on s i nd ic ate d th at tr ai ni ng r es ul ted in s ign ifi ca ntl y h igh er s ol uti on rate s fo r Cov ert Li st ing bu t no t f or O vert Li st ing . S ol uti on r ates fo r t he Tr ai ni ng c on di tion , e sti ma ted fr om p lots , w ere 4 8% a nd 5 0% for O vert a nd C ov -ert l is ting , res pe ct iv el y, a nd fo r th e Hi nt con di tio n, 42 % a nd 22 %
165
Of the 30 experiments reported, none directly compared the two most common training procedures, restructuring and divergence. This comment is not intended as criti-cism, since for the most part, studies were concerned with establishing whether or not a training method was effective. The situation is analogous to that of creativity training a generation ago, when it was observed that the focus of research had been on the over-all effectiveness of training approaches rather than on the specific factors that led to suc-cess (Clapham, 1997). There is now sufficient evidence that insight can be improved by training to ask whether one theoretical approach may be better than another. Both experi-ments reported below directly compared training methods derived from the different major theoretical traditions, of restructuring and divergent thinking.
The experiments reported here compared a restructuring approach to three diver-gent thinking procedures based separately on fluency, flexibility and originality, the main factors of divergent thinking. The first experiment compared restructuring training and di-vergence training with a control condition. The second experiment compared restructur-ing, flexibility, fluency and originality training.
In addition to similarities and differences in training approach, the 30 experiments reviewed above also showed similarities and differences in the format of instruction. The majority used primarily paper-based instruction (e.g. Ansburg & Dominowski, 2000; Chrysikou, 2006; Dow & Mayer, 2004; Duncan, 1961; Patrick & Ahmed, 2014; Patrick et al., 2015), some provided combined verbal and written instructions (Cunningham & Mac-Gregor, 2008; Walinga, Cunningham, & MacMac-Gregor, 2011; Davidson & Sternberg, 1984; Maier, 1933), while one used audio tape (Ostafin & Kassman, 2012) and one, computer-ized instruction (Chiu, 2015). Whichever format is used, there is potential for participants to understand instructions differently from intended. Participants may read instructions with different degrees of attention or understanding while instructions presented orally may vary in tone or emphasis, or depart in places from the written script. Whatever the format, there is room for variability in how instructions are received and interpreted by participants. To test whether format influences the effectiveness of training, the first ex-periment reported below varied delivery format as a second independent variable.
Experiment 1
The study compared the effects of divergent thinking training and restructuring training on subsequent performance on insight problem solving. The study used an experimental de-sign with participants randomly asde-signed to one of three treatment groups, divergence (D), restructuring (R) or a control group (C).
Training in divergence in this case focused on fluency, and was based on Clap-ham’s (1997) short-form process for training ideational skills, in which participants were
166
shown a variety of idea generation techniques including brainstorming, forced relation, conceptual combination, and elaboration or ‘catalog’ (Clapham, 1997; Clapham & Shus-ter, 1992). The restructuring training combined and elaborated techniques from our previ-ous studies on training insight (Cunningham & MacGregor, 2008; Walinga, Cunningham, & MacGregor, 2011) and focused on a variety of insight thinking techniques including problem formulation, drilling down, assumption checking, and recognizing and overcom-ing barriers. The control trainovercom-ing was based on the control condition described by Ansburg and Dominowski (2000), and focused on recalling relevant facts, being system-atic and maintaining a focus on the goal.
To test whether delivery format may be a factor in the effects of training, the exper-iment varied format as a second independent variable.
METHOD Participants
Participants were 61 student volunteers from the University of Victoria, 30 female and 31 male. Age information was not collected.
Materials Training phase
Scripts were developed for each of the three training conditions, designed to be approxi-mately equal in length. The number of words was 430, 421 and 431 for the Restructuring, Divergence and Control conditions, respectively. Each script began with the 9 dot prob-lem as an example of the kind of probprob-lem that would be presented later, then gave advice related to the form of training, and ended with a list of brief prompts that would be provid-ed as reminders with each test problem. The scripts are providprovid-ed in Appendix A.
Test phase
Materials for testing consisted of five spatial insight problems taken from Walinga et al., 2011). (See Appendix B.)
Design and Procedure
The experiment used a 3x2 between subjects design consisting of three levels of training (R, D and C) and two levels of presentation format (verbal and written script). Participants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions with the constraint of 10 per cell. One additional volunteer was accidentally scheduled and assigned to the Restructuring condi-tion. Participants were tested individually. After the assigned form of training, the five in-sight problems were presented individually in the same random order and participants were allowed up to four minutes for each problem. After one minute, unless the partici-pant had already solved a problem, reminder training prompts were given, either orally or in written form, depending on presentation condition.
167
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Scores of 1 and 0 were assigned to correct and incorrect solutions and summed across the five problems for each participant. The means (and standard deviations) of the num-ber correct for each condition are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Mean (and Standard Deviation) of the Number of Problems Solved by Training Condition and Presentation Format, Experiment 1
Total scores were analyzed using ANOVA which indicated a significant main effect of training, F(2,55) = 12.11, MSE = 6.05, p < .02, 2 = .14, a significant training x presenta-tion interacpresenta-tion, F(2,55) = 3.83, MSE = 5.24, p < .03, 2 = .12, and no significant effect of presentation, F(1,55) = .43, = .59, p = .51. The form of the interaction effect is illustrated in Figure 1, which suggests that there was little difference between conditions when train-ing was delivered by script. Bonferroni tests of simple main effects indicated that restruc-turing training was significantly more effective than either the fluency training (p < .001) or control conditions (p < .02) for verbal training only. No other differences were significant. While the results supported the effectiveness of the restructuring proce-dure, they also called into question the effectiveness of a script-based approach to train-ing. This was unexpected, as many previous studies using training scripts have reported successful outcomes (Ahmed & Patrick, 2006; Ansburg & Dominowski, 2000; Chrysikou, 2006; Dow & Mayer, 2004; Kershaw & Ohlsson, 2004). Based on the results, we conduct-ed a post-hoc power analysis, which indicatconduct-ed that the experiment were underpowerconduct-ed at .71, falling short of the desired criterion of .8. The second experiment developed and tested new training scripts, following the approach of Chrysikou (2006), and based the sample size on a power analysis of the results of that study.
Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications 6(2) 2019
Presentation Format
Training condition Verbal Script
Restructuring 4.20 (0.92) 2.91 (1.30)
Divergent 2.20 (1.14) 2.90 (1.73)
168
Figure 1. Mean number of problems solved by training method and presentation format (verbal or script), Experiment 1
Experiment 2
The first experiment failed to find any significant effects when training was delivered in a written format. The result raises the possibility that, to be effective, our restructuring training has to be provided orally. We developed a new script-based approach, which the second experiment tested, comparing it to three other script-based approaches.
The first approach, which we refer to as flexibility training, used the Alternative Cat-egories Test procedure described by Chrysikou (2006), adapted from the Unusual Uses Test of Christensen and Guilford (1958). The procedure consists of a printed question-naire presenting 12 common objects (e.g. pillow, fork, shoe, brick) and describing a com-mon use for each (e.g. for sleeping, for eating, as footwear, for building, etc.). The task invites participants to list up to six additional purposes to which each object could be put (e.g. a shoe could be used to drink champagne from). The instructions included the ex-ample of a newspaper, described as an item for reading, and listed six alternative uses, including “to start a fire” and “to wrap a parcel”. Participants were informed that accepta-ble alternatives must be different from each other and different from the original use.
Our second approach adapted the same procedure to focus on fluency rather than flexibility. Again, the instructions used the example of a newspaper and indicated that the
169
task was to think of other items that could be used for reading, such as a book, maga-zine, article, cereal box, etc. Participants were instructed that each acceptable item must be different from the others but used for a similar purpose, and too think of as many dif-ferent items as you can in the time given.
We adapted the same procedure to create a third approach with a focus on origi-nality rather than flexibility or fluency. In this case, the alternative uses for the example of “newspaper” included “as a tent” and “as a telescope”. Acceptable alternatives were de-scribed as having to be different from each other and completely unusual.
The final approach adapted the ACT procedure for restructuring training. In this case, the example given illustrated a cascading series of problems posed by having no newspaper, starting with (1) not knowing the daily news, leading to (2) not being up to date on events, resulting in (2) having nothing to talk about. Example solutions provided for the third, “core”, problem were to take books from the library, to learn a new skill, and to travel. The instructions indicated that the process “explores the problem more deeply” and “reframes the problem”. The task used the same 12 objects as in the flexibility and originality conditions, but described the initial problem in terms of lacking the object (e.g. no pillow, no fork, etc.). In each case, participants were invited to write three connected problems caused by the lack of the object and a solution to the final “core” problem. For example, having no pillow might lead to poor sleep, leading to lack of concentration dur-ing tomorrow’s classes, resultdur-ing in takdur-ing poor lecture notes. The final problem could be solved by borrowing notes from a classmate after the lecture.
METHOD Participants
Participants were 89 volunteers from the University of Victoria and Royal Roads Universi-ty. Age and gender information were not collected. A power analysis based on the results reported in Table 1 of Chrysikou (2006) indicated a minimum total sample size of 64. Materials
Training phase
The materials were as described above. The first page of each set of instructions is pro-vided in Appendix C.
Testing phase
The test phase used the same seven insight problems reported in Chrysikou (2006): the Charlie problem (Weisberg, 1995), the Fake Coin problem (Weisberg, 1995), the Prisoner and Rope problem (Isaak & Just, 1995), the Candle problem (Isaak & Just, 1995), the Pyramid and Dollar Bill problem (Isaak & Just, 1995), the Two-String problem (Isaak & Just, 1995), and the Ten-Coin problem (Isaak & Just, 1995).
170
Design and Procedure
The experiment used a between subjects design consisting of four levels of training (Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, Restructuring). Participants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions with the constraint of at least 20 per cell. The assignment result-ed in 21 participants in the Fluency condition, 22 in the Flexibility condition, 21 in the Originality condition and 25 in the Restructuring condition. Participants were tested indi-vidually. After the assigned form of training, the seven insight problems were presented individually in the same random order and participants were allowed up to eight minutes for each problem. Because Chrysikou (2006) found a significant increase in insight prob-lem solving in the training condition compared with controls, we did not include a control group, and used flexibility performance as a baseline.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Scores of 1 and 0 were assigned to correct and incorrect solutions and summed across the seven problems for each participant. The means (and standard deviations) were 3.80 (1.78) for restructuring training, 2.67 (1.59) for originality training, 2.14 (1.62) for fluency training and 1.95 (1.50) for flexibility training. One-way ANOVA found a significant differ-ence among means, F(3,88) = 6.14, MSE = 2.66, p < .001, 2 = .18, while Bonferroni mul-tiple comparison tests indicated that the only significant differences were that restructur-ing trainrestructur-ing resulted in significantly more solutions than both fluency trainrestructur-ing (p < .01) and flexibility training (p < .001).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The research reported here was concerned with the training of creativity, specifically, with the training of insight problem solving. As a preliminary, we reviewed meta-analyses and systematic reviews of creativity training, from which it became apparent that (a) the ma-jority of training approaches stressed divergent thinking, and (b) while some reviews in-cluded “creative problem solving” as a topic, none singled-out insight problem solving, or reported on whether or not it was amenable to training.
We next conducted a literature search for experimental studies of insight training, which identified 17 articles that met our search criteria, reporting a total of 30 experi-mental comparisons. In contrast to the general creativity training literature, the majority of these took a restructuring approach (70%), and a minority, divergent thinking (27%). For the most part, the experiments compared either single training procedures or related training procedures with a non-training control. This is completely appropriate when the purpose is to establish that a training procedure accomplishes the goal of improving in-sight performance. However, there are now a sufficient number of experimental demon-strations of the effectiveness of training that it may be time for the goal to shift to one of
171
comparing the relative effectiveness of different approaches. The research reported here took this approach, and compared a restructuring approach aimed at overcoming im-passes with approaches that focused on the main factors identified as underlying diver-gent thinking - fluency, flexibility and originality.
The first experiment manipulated two factors orthogonally. The main factor was type of training, with three levels - restructuring training, fluency training, and a control condition. A second factor compared the delivery of training, verbal versus script-based. The majority of prior experiments have used script - based training, although a few have used verbal delivery. Different delivery formats were included to test whether one is more effective than the other, or whether the effect of delivery varies with training approach.
The results indicated a significant training by delivery format interaction, where ge-stalt - based training was significantly more effective than fluency training or the control in the verbal delivery format but not when training was script - based. The result contrasted with those of several previous studies which had successfully used script-based training, and raised the possibility that our training approach had to be provided orally. To further examine this possibility, Experiment 2 used more extensive scripts based on the proce-dure described by Chrysikou (2006). We adapted the proceproce-dure to provide four different forms of training, focused on fluency, flexibility, originality and restructuring. The proce-dure for flexibility training was identical to that used by Chrysikou, while the remaining three differed in the goal they assigned to the trainees. In all four cases, the test insight problems were the same as those of Chrysikou. Because Chrysikou found a significant increase in insight problem solving in the training condition compared with controls, we did not include a control group, and used flexibility performance as a baseline.
The results indicated that the scripts used in restructuring approach based on ge-stalt-based principles resulted in significantly more insight problems solved than either fluency training or the baseline flexibility training, which had the lowest scores of all four procedures. In retrospect, having a control condition would have been valuable, since the findings are consistent with a number of possible outcomes. At one extreme, if our results replicated those of Chrysikou (2006), then all four training conditions improved insight performance. At the other extreme, if flexibility training did not improve performance, then only the restructuring training was significantly effective. Future research will be conduct-ed to further examine these possibilities. For now, however, we can conclude with a de-gree of confidence that the restructuring training scripts were superior to both fluency and flexibility training.
The studies reported here have a number of limitations, particularly in the case of Experiment 1. As noted previously, the experiment appears to have been underpowered,
172
with a consequent concern that it may have failed to detect real differences between con-ditions. Another potential concern arises from the presence of an instructor in one set of conditions. While the instructor worked from prepared scripts, it is still possible that partic-ipants in those conditions received information beyond what was intended. Experiment 2 attempted to correct these deficiencies, by achieving sufficient power and by more strin-gently controlling the forms of instruction.
There are many other possibilities for research comparing training approaches. There was considerable diversity within the categories of procedures classified as “restructuring” and “divergence” in Table 1. For example, as well as the more traditional forms of instructional training (Ansburg & Dominowski, 2000; Cunningham & MacGregor, 2008) there were training procedures based on mindfulness (Ostafin & Kassman, 2012) and “thinking in opposites” (Brancini et al., 2016; Bianchi et al., 2019). Similarly, in addi-tion to well-established methods for facilitating divergent thinking, the list included a test of “overinclusive thinking” (Chiu, 2015). Comparing different approaches within theoretical categories as well as between may help in further refining training procedures and defin-ing the principles that underlie them.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, A., & Patrick, J. (2006). Making implicit assumptions explicit in verbal insight problem solving. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 955-960.
Ansburg, P. I., & Dominowski, R. L. (2000). Promoting insightful problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 30-60.
Ash, I. K., & Wiley, J. (2006). The nature of restructuring in insight: An individual-differences approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 66-73.
Ball, L. J., & Stevens, A. (2009). Evidence for a verbally-based analytic component to in-sight problem solving. Chapter in N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society.
Berardi-Coletta, B., Dominowski, R. L., Buyer, L. S., & Rellinger, E. R. (1995). Metacogni-tion and problem solving: A process-oriented approach. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 205-223.
Bianchi, I., Branchini, E., Burro, R., Capitani, E., & Savardi, U. (2019) Overtly prompting people to “think in opposites” supports insight problem solving, Thinking & Reasoning, DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2018.1553738
173
Brancini, E., Bianchi, I., Burro,R., Capitani, E., & Savardi, U. (2016) Can contraries prompt intuition in insight problem solving? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, doi: 10.3389/ fpsyg.2016.01962
Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associates problems. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 35: 634-639.
Burke, R. J., Maier, N. R., & Hoffman, R. (1966). Functions of hints in individual problem solving. American Journal of Psychology, 79, 389-399.
Christensen, P. R., & Guilford, J. P. (1958). Creativity/Fluency Scales. Beverly Hills, CA: Sheridan Supply.
Chronicle, E. P., Ormerod, T. C., & MacGregor, J. N. (2001). When insight just won’t come:
The failure of visual cues in the nine-dot problem. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 903-919.
Chrysikou, E.G. (2006). When shoes become hammers: Goal-derived categorization training
enhances problem solving performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 935-942.
Chiu, F-C. (2015). Improving your creative potential without awareness: Overinclusive thinking training. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 15, 1-12
Chu, Y., & MacGregor, J.N. (2011). Human Performance on Insight Problem Solving: A Review. Journal of Problem Solving, 3(2), 119-150.
Clapham, M.M. (1997). Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training pro-grams. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 33-44.
Clapham, M.M., & Shuster, D.H. (1992). Can engineering students be trained to to think more creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 26, 156-162.
Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2008) Training insightful problem solving: Ef-fectsO
of realistic and puzzle-like contexts. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 291-296.
Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. A. (1984). The role of insight in intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 58-64.
de Bono, E. (1971). Lateral thinking for management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
de Bono, E. (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. New York: Harper Collins.
Dow, G. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching students to solve insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 389-402.
174
Duncan, C. P. (1961). Attempts to influence performance on an insight problem. Psycho-logical Reports, 9, 35-42.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving., Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
Guilford , J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Hume, S.E., (2001). Frederick Banting: Hero, healer, artist. Montreal: XYZ Publishing. Isaak, M. I., & Just, M. A. (1995). Constraints on thinking in insight and invention. In R. J.
Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press. Kershaw, T. C., & Ohlsson, S. (2004). Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: The case of
the nine-dot problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 3-13.
Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., & Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 25, 1534-1555.
Kokinov, B., Hadjiilieva, K. & Yoveva, M. (1997). Is a hint always useful in problem solv-ing? The influence of pragmatic distance on context effects. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, p, 974. Erlbaum.
Kounios, J., Frymiare, J. L., Bowden, E. M., Fleck, J., Subramaniam, K., Parish, T. B., & Jung- Beeman, M. (2006). The prepared mind: Neural activity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight. Psychological Science, 17(10), 882-890.
Luo, J., Niki, K., & Phillips, S. (2004). Neural correlates of the ‘Aha !’ reaction. Neu-roReport For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 15, 2013-2017.
Luchins, A.S., & Luchins, E.H. (1970). Wertheimer’s Seminars Revisited: Problem Solv-ing and ThinkSolv-ing. State University of New York at Albany.
Lung, C.-T., & Dominowski, R. L. (1985). Effects of strategy instructions and practice on nine-dot problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 804-811.
Maier, N. R. F. (1933). An aspect of human reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 24, 144-155.
MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C., & Chronicle, E. P. (2001). Information processing and insight: A process model of performance on the nine-dot and related problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 176-201.
Ma, H-H. (2006). Synthetic analysis of the effectiveness of single components and pack-ages in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 435-446
175
Maltzman, I., Lloyd, B.O., Bogartz, W., & Summers, S.S. (1958). The facilitation of prob-lem solving by prior exposure to uncommon responses. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology, 56, 399-406.
Mansfield, R.S., Busse, T.V., & Krepelka, E.J. (1978). The effectiveness of creativity training. Review of Educational Research, 48, 517-536
Metcalfe, J. (1986). Premonitions of insight predict impending error. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 623-634.
Moga E., Burger, K., Hetland, L., & Winner, E. (2000). Does studying the arts engender creative thinking? Evidence for near but not far transfer. The Journal of Aesthetic Edu-cation, 34, 91-104.
Ohlsson, S. (1984). Restructuring revisited: II. An information-processing theory of re-structuring and insight. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,25, 117-129.
Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information processing explanations of insight and related phenome-na. In M. Keane & K. J. Gilhooley (Eds.), Advances in the psychology of thinking (pp. 1-44). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Ohlsson, S. (2011). Deep learning: How the mind overrides experience. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ormerod, T. C., Fioratou, E., Chronicle, E. P., & MacGregor, J. N. (2006). The remnants of insight. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Socie-ty, 1893-1898.
Ostafin B.D., & Kassman, K.T. (2012). Stepping out of history: Mindfulness improves in-sight problem solving. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1031-1036
Patrick, J., & Ahmed, A. (2014). Facilitating representation change in insight problems through training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni-tion, 40, 532-543.
Patrick, J., Ahmed, A., Smy, V., Seeby, H., & Sambrooks, K. (2015). A cognitive proce-dure for representation change in verbal insight problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 746-759.
Rose, L. H., & Lin, H. T. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 11-22.
Scott, G. L., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity train-ing: A meta-analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361-388.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Be-havior, 6, 114-143.
Walinga, J., Cunningham, J.B., & MacGregor, J.N. (2011). Training insight problem solv-ing through focus on barriers and assumptions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 47-58.
176
Weisberg, R. W. (1995). Prolegomena to the theories of insight in problem solving: A tax-onomy of problems. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 157-196). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wen, M-C., Butler, L.T., & Koutstaal, W. (2012). Improving insight and non-insight prob-lem solving with brief interventions. British Journal of Psychology, 4, 97-118.
Wicker, F. W., Weistein, C. E., Yelich, C. A., & Brooks, J. D. (1978). Problem-reformulation training and visualization training with insight problems. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 70, 372-377.
APPENDIX A Training for Experiment 1
The initial training involved reviewing a sample problem (nine-dot problem). After an intro-duction, the experimenter illustrated the problem and the correct solution and the princi-ples that would be used for solving the problem for each of the conditions: Fluency, re-structuring focus and control.
The fluency training encouraging people to think of principles based on developing more ideas in solving the nine-dot problem using phrases like “One way is to let ideas run wild and suspend judgment of ideas”, “Are there ways to magnify, minify, or rearrange ideas that you already have?” Subjects were reminded that these types of problems may require you to combine ideas, broaden your thinking, or view the problem in different ways.
They were informed that they would get reminders through the session:
How many ideas or solutions can you generate right now about this problem? Be sure you are withholding any adverse judgment until later, anything goes, nothing is too outrageous! How many wild, untamed, unusual, out of the box ideas can you think of for this problem? Can you generate even more ideas? Are there any you haven’t thought of yet?
When you look at some of the ideas you have generated, can any of them be com-bined, connected, or improved in some way to generate even more ideas? What are some combinations or constructions that you have not considered yet because they are too unusual? Are there ways to magnify, minify, or rearrange ideas that you al-ready have?
What are some other ways you might look at this problem? What are some other per-spectives you might take on when looking at this problem? Who might come at this problem a little differently? Can you imagine how they might approach it differently? Is there a common principle here that could be applied to all of the problems? What other problems does this problem remind you of? Is there anything in the room that might spur further ideas?
177
The Restructuring Focus Training involved helping principles to help people recognize that this type of problem is difficult is because people place unnecessary limits on them-selves. They make assumptions about what or isn’t allowed that stops them from finding the answer. Examples of assumptions include: “you have to stay inside the “square”. No, you can go “outside of the box”, “lines have to be vertical or horizontal” and “you have to connect dots and you can start a line where there is no dot”. In this problem, we might fixate on assumptions, and the barriers these create, rather than solving the core lenge of a task. Revealing barriers and assumptions can help you to identify the real chal-lenge rather than trying to ‘make more lines or get rid of dots.’
Solving these types of problems may require you to reveal the barriers and assump-tions you are constructing, find the core challenge, and reformulate the problem in more insightful ways. Some of the reminders throughout the session included:
What have you tried so far?
What is getting in the way? What do you find yourself focusing on?
Because what are you assuming? What if your assumption is incorrect? Does it have to be that way?
What is getting in the way? What is making you most uncomfortable or irritated; what bothers, concerns, bugs you most? What is the real problem you are trying to solve here?
What is making that difficult? What concerns you about that?
What is most important then? What is the real challenge here? You need to _____ in order to _____?
What are some solutions you can think of to solve the real challenge you have just identified?
The Control Training suggested that problems like this are difficult for various reasons in-cluding: knowledge required, complexity, or inability to recognize the goal we want to ob-tain. That is, one source of difficulty may be the failure to use our knowledge. Finding the solution might require recalling a relevant fact, and failure to solve the problem may be nothing more than failure to remember. Some problems are difficult because they are too large – there are so many alternatives to consider that it can be difficult to explore them all and to keep track of which ones we have tried vs. which ones still need to be checked. To succeed on such problems a person needs to systematically consider alternatives and keep good (mental or physical) records of which ones have been tried. For instance, the nine dot problem you just tried could be solved eventually by going through the various possibilities and tracking these until you found a solution. Also, we tend to lose sight of
178
the goal of the task. The goal becomes ‘joining up all the dots’ when really the goal in-volves ‘drawing 4 straight lines through each of the 9 dots below.’ We often end up focus-ing on the wrong goal.
Some of the reminders during the session included:
What principle or fact may you not be remembering? What specialized knowledge may be required? Can you delve into and scan your memory for other facts and principles that you know, but may simply be struggling to remember right here and now? What principles or facts may you not have considered yet?
Are you able to keep track of this problem? How might you work through this prob-lem more systematically?
When you think about what you are focusing on trying to do right now, are you fo-cusing on the right goal? What is the goal of the task again?
APPENDIX B Test insight problems (Experiment 1)
Task required Illustration of materials
1. Cards: Materials: Twelve cards from a standard deck, four Kings, Queens, Jacks.
The task is to arrange them in a grid -a table-so that each row and each column contains only one Jack, one Queen and one King. Source: Cunningham and MacGregor (2008)
2. Hexagon: Materials: 12 discs and Hexagon The task is to arrange the 12 discs so that each side of the hexagon has 4 discs? Source: Cunningham, MacGregor, Gibb, and Harr (2009)
3. Cross: Materials: Five pieces of wood (as shown on right). The task is to arrange the 5 pieces to form a cross (like a plus sign). Source: Adapted from the T -puzzle, Suzuki, Abe, Hiraki, and Miyazaki (2001) 4. Sticks. Materials: 8 matchsticks.
The task is to move three sticks and change the pat-tern on the left to look like the patpat-tern on the right? Source: Adapted from Kokinov et al., (1997) 5. Diagram of pigs in a pigpen.
The task is to add two squares so that each of the 9 pigs ends up in a separate enclosure. Source: Gil-hooly and Murphy (2005); Isaak and Just (1996)
MacGregor, J. N., Cunningham, J. B., Walinga J. An Experimental Comparison of Approaches ...
1 2
3 4
179
APPENDIX C Training scripts for Experiment 2
This training involved completing 12 tasks where participants were given 15 minutes to com-plete. Each task required participants to read the instructions aloud and complete the task. Fluency Training
In this fluency task, the participant was asked to list as many different items that may be used for the same purpose as the original item.
EXAMPLE:
Given: A NEWSPAPER (used as reading material)
You might think of the following other items that can be used for the same thing: book magazine article cereal box advertisement play … … … Etc…
They are asked to recognized that all of the items listed are different from each other but used for a similar purpose. Each acceptable item must be different from the others but used for a similar purpose. They are asked to think of as many different items as you can in the time given.
Flexibility Training
In this task, there were several common items and participants were asked to list as many as six (6) other categories to which the items could belong.
EXAMPLE:
Given: A NEWSPAPER (Common use: Item for reading).
You might think of the following other categories in which a newspaper would belong: 1. Things to start a fire
2. Things to wrap parcels 3. Item to swat flies
4. Item to use as stuffing to pack boxes 5. Something to line drawers or shelves 6. Use the letters to make up a kidnap note
